Whittaker v. Crow, Hargadine & Co.

Citations

• 132 Ill. 627

Syllabus

<p>1. Limitations—new contract—to take a case out of the statute. After the Statute of Limitations had run against a note for $789, the holders thereof, a partnership firm, indorsed thereon, “We agree to accept $500 in full satisfaction of within note during 1885,” to which their firm name was signed, and below this entry was written, “I accept the above condition,” signed by the maker: Held, that these entries amounted to a new contract by the debtor, based on the moral consideration of the old debt to pay the sum agreed upon, within the time fixed, and that it was a surrender on the part of the creditor of all other demands growing out of the former liability, and that such new contract was a binding obligation on the debtor.</p> <p>2. Interest—on written promise to pay—after limitation had run. The maker of a promissory note barred by the Statute of Limitations, accepted an offer of the owner of the note to accept a sum less than the face of it, in full satisfaction thereof, all of which was written on the note. This was held to amount to a promise to pay the sum named, and that as the contract was in writing, the promisee was entitled to six per cent interest after the maturity of the new contract.</p>